Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Maleficent

This is topic Maleficent in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=002048

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-30-2014, 10:41 PM:

A reworking of the classic 1959 Disney animated feature, Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent portrays the same story from the villain's point of view - more a parallelequel than a sequel or prequel, if you like. Naturally in this story we find that Maleficent is not such the bad witch after all but rather misunderstood.

Given that Maleficent was actually killed by the valiant prince in Sleeping Beauty, some narrative gymnastics are required to make the story a palatable family movie. As such, where Sleeping Beauty may be considered as a retelling of the story as King Stefan would have us remember it, Maleficent is how the titular dark, tragic fairy queen would have us believe it all went down. There's two sides to every story, it seems.

Key scenes from Sleeping Beauty are cleverly recast here - the cursing of Princess Aurora, the dragon battle at the castle, the awakening of Aurora with true love's kiss etc. - albeit spun a little differently in order to comply with Maleficent's newly revealed motives. This all works exceedingly well with the exception of the "good" fairies (renamed from Flora, Fauna and Merryweather to Flittle, Knotgrass and Thistletwit - for some unexplained reason) who are even less competent in this film than they were in it's predecessor. Given the film's (fashionable) dark tone, the tiny fairy guardians really do come across as halfwits and it beggars belief that any infant could be placed in their care! Admittedly this is used as the catalyst for Maleficent to form an unlikely relationship with the infant Aurora but one wonders whether this could have been handled more logically and intelligently.

But this is a minor quibble in the overall enjoyable spectacle that is Maleficent. It's a genuinely interesting idea coupled with some gorgeous (albeit mostly CG) production design and perfect casting with Angelina Jolie in the title role.

The rest of the cast is merely serviceable, however, and the strangest casting is in Elle Fanning as Princess Aurora. Whilst being far from unattractive, Fanning looks positively plain next to Maleficent's magnificence and so is an interesting casting choice for a princess supposedly charmed with great beauty. But make no mistake, this is the Jolie Show and she carries the film single-handedly with great ease.

8 out of 10

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-30-2014, 11:13 PM:

I generally liked this. I think it was rather interesting that no one else really that famous outshines Jolie as the lead. Props to the CGI work, the beautiful score and 7.1 soundmix. The 3D post conversion work was rather pointless since a lot of the film is dark and the dimensionality is severely diminished as a result. Word is that even the IMAX-D engagements which has more brightness doesn't help out either.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-30-2014, 11:29 PM:

We were requested by Disney (through our booker) to play all the "prime time" shows on this movie in 2-D, which really surprised me. I guess I don't know how many other single screeners are playing this movie and are also on Film-Tech, but if there are, did you get the same request?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-31-2014, 03:16 AM:

Know of a REGAL 14 location where they have over a dozen 2D screenings and only 4 3D screenings.

Disney didn't make a fuss on this one.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-01-2014, 09:30 PM:

that's kind of telling when the studio 'itself' undermines the 3D engagements.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-01-2014, 11:17 PM:

The Regal Pearl Highland near where I live has only two 3-D shows for the new Disney film- 2:40 and 10:40 pm. The first show of the day with other 3-D movies usually is the 3-D first followed with the 2-D and once again in 3-D After that the 2-D plays again and finally concluding with the 3-D. Both 3-D showings of MALEFICENT are not good times for me and I have decided to skip the theatrical showing and wait for the movie to be released in 3-D on Blu Ray. The 3-D movie ticket is $14.00 and the BD will be about $23.00. For just $9.00 more my whole family can watch it at home with me in 3-D and the movie is mine to keep to watch again if I chose to do so.

-Claude

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 06-02-2014, 12:48 AM:

I've been noticing a similar trend with 3D exhibitions here too. 2-3 3D presentations per day in the first week and then they tail off very quickly after that or disappear entirely.

Incidentally, Claude, Disney 3D blurays hit the shelves here around $50. Apparently it costs about $20 to ship each and every copy to Australia.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-02-2014, 01:00 AM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
The 3-D movie ticket is $14.00 and the BD will be about $23.00. For just $9.00 more my whole family can watch it at home with me in 3-D and the movie is mine to keep to watch again if I chose to do so.

Or you could just wait a full year and pick it up for $10 at a second hand store?

Or you could skip 2D and just watch it on a Redbox rental for less than $2?

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-02-2014, 05:24 PM:

Stu: your reviews continue to be the best written reviews that I have ever read. Thank you.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-05-2014, 09:07 AM:

Seconding that statement here as well.

Perhaps with the overall dark tilt to the film, perhaps Disney felt that since so many 3D screens are near the unacceptable line on the light meter, with plenty below it, the 3D presentations of this particular title would suffer badly.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-05-2014, 12:41 PM:

If such was the case, Frank, why did a Disney bother to release MALEFICENT in 3-D? For some reason, I opted to see the remake of FRIGHT NIGHT in 2-D in a theatre when I always watch movies in 3-D there. The movie was not as good as the original but I still enjoyed it. When the movie was released on a Blu Ray in both 3-D and 2-D, critics praised the native 3-D used in the movie but complained the movie was too dark in the format because much of it takes place at night outdoors and unlit rooms indoors. I saw the BD after renting it but since I did not have a 3-D HDTV display yet, I saw it again in 2-D and had no problem with the movie. Even after I was informed by critics the 3-D BD of the movie was dark, I went ahead and bought it from AMAZON. Yes, the 3-D was excellent but the critics was right, it was very dark.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-05-2014, 10:27 PM:

I should point out (for anybody who doesn't know it) that we have a single screen here, so it was probably only in single screen cases where Disney requested the 'prime time' shows to be in 2D. I'm sure there were plenty of 3D shows out there in multiplex land.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-09-2014, 04:53 AM:

I've seen this in the large auditorium of the Tuschinski theater in Amsterdam. One of the last real movie palaces left around here.

And although the place itself is utterly stunning in all its Art Deco glory, it's probably not the best location to see a modern-day (3D) action spectacle. Primarily because the screen, although still of a respectable size, is rather small compared to the size of the room and the sound in such a large room will always suffer.

I do agree with the comments about the 3D in this movie, although the rather large distance from the screen might have taken part in it too. It would've been better to just release a 2D version, but seemingly, people expect any Disney release to be in 3D those days, or maybe Disney thinks people want that...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-09-2014, 04:10 PM:

We watched this on Saturday and enjoyed it a lot. I haven't ever been a huge fan of the recent trend of live action re-spinning of fairy tales so my want-to-see on this was about at the bottom of the scale, but we heard so many people raving about how good it was that we finally decided to watch it.

I agree with the previous opinions that it's Angelina's show all the way. I'm kind of surprised that she allowed her face to be altered that way for the character, but it does make her look more like the animated character.

The story aligns pretty well with the 1959 version, but I found myself wishing they'd figured out a way to make the story line up perfectly -- it would have been more interesting that way. They could have had the dragon at the end get killed somehow, inferring it was THAT dragon that died in the animated version, rather than Maleficent herself. But, the dragon in this movie was the sidekick character so they'd have had to think of something else. But it would have been cool if the stories lined up that way.

I also agree with this:

quote:
the tiny fairy guardians really do come across as halfwits and it beggars belief that any infant could be placed in their care!

I don't know why they made them such idiots. They were scatterbrained in the '59 movie but not stupid. The story needed some comic relief, but I thought making characters stupid is Seth McFarlane's job these days.

I was very glad for the reasonable running time on the movie. Seems like the big thing these days is to make this kind of film be 140 minutes or more. Just under 100 is perfect, especially for kids.

Bottom line, this movie made us want to watch the 1959 film again which we will do as soon as a BR can be had for a reasonable price....currently it's over 80 bucks on Amazon.

3.5 out of 5 stars from me. It has also been enjoyable listening to patrons mangle the pronunciation of the title. "Two for Magneficelent please"

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-10-2014, 10:15 PM:

I was just watching the credits on this movie and see where they have 11 people credited as "Senior Nuke Wranglers." I don't know what that is but it sure sounds cool.

There are also several people simply credited as "DIT," and a lot of "HOD Managers."

I don't know if there's a website that tells what all the various movie credits mean but there should be.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-13-2014, 05:17 PM:

CINEMA: Moore Warren, Moore, OK
AUDITORIUM: 10
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema/THX (2D)
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Three stars (out of four)

THE PLOT: Revenge. Wackiness ensues.

What a beautiful movie. Great scenes and a solid story. Really the only complaint I had was I don't understand why she couldn't just give herself replacement wings. She can seemingly heel herself otherwise and anyone else for that matter.

A friend of mine who is a fierce Disney traditionalist, wasn't happy with it. I can understand that.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-15-2014, 08:41 PM:

I saw this again, early last week over at Tysons, and I thought the image via the dual Christie projectors was brighter and conveyed better dimensionality. The Atmos mix sounded just as good as the 7.1 mix, but the occasional use of the overhead speakers really gave it extra impact.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-16-2014, 06:23 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
There are also several people simply credited as "DIT," and a lot of "HOD Managers."

DIT is Digital Imaging Technician, I'm pretty sure. HOD I've got no clue. "Head of Department" maybe but why list it like that?

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-17-2014, 01:35 AM:

quote: Stu Jamieson
overall enjoyable spectacle that is Maleficent.

quote: Sam Graham
What a beautiful movie. Great scenes and a solid story.

Saw it tonight and yes it was a spectacle indeed. A good story with fantastic visuals. Jolie was great.

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 06-23-2014, 09:35 PM:

To bad old Disney won't spend the $$ and shoot in true 3-D. This film was a waste for me in 3-D. Even the butterflies stayed on the screen and didn't come out for a audience visit. The phony rain stayed on the screen. X Men had great 3-D because It was filmed in 3-D. I go on the site True 3-D or Fake 3-D, you find out before you go what will look good or bad.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-23-2014, 11:27 PM:

Terry, not all converted 3-D movies are bad. Some excellent ones include TITANIC, JURASSIC PARK and PACIFIC RIM to name a few Although I did not see it In IMAX or regular 3-D in a theatre, WIZARD OF OZ looked fantastic in 3-D when I watched it on my 3-D HDTV from A Blu Ray disc.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-23-2014, 11:55 PM:

quote: Terry Monohan
To bad old Disney won't spend the $$ and shoot in true 3-D.

I think conversion technology has gotten good enough that it doesn't really make any difference any more. It's all in how the filmmakers envision it.

Maybe this is the reason Disney kind of downplayed the 3-D for this movie - they didn't think it was too impressive.

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 06-24-2014, 01:24 PM:

Claude**Maybe Disney needs to check out what company worked on the 3-D version of Jurassic as I must admit It looked good in conversion 3-D. The public knows what is bad and what is a good 3-D print. Word of mouth and some movie review people will tell you about the 3-D used in a new movie. Seems like the guys that review movies these days don't even mention about the 3-D in any review articles only If It's bad.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-24-2014, 03:46 PM:

Terry, I do not know why but it seem 3-D movies both shot native or converted looks much better on HDTV . TITANIC looked awesome when I saw it in 3-D IMAX but it looked a little better in HD at home and the same goes for JURASSIC. PARK and PACIFIC RIM.

Yes, I agree, almost all critics do not mention 3-D when they review movies and this is most likely that they did not see them in 3-D. In America, there seem to be a large majority of people who dislike 3-D and avoid all movies that were released in that format and I am sure this includes many critics. Yes, I agree there were many that did not need the 3-D treatment or had very bad conversion done to them but others like HUGO, THE GREAT GATSBY, LIFE OF PI and many others should only be seen in 3-D.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-24-2014, 04:08 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
TITANIC looked awesome when I saw it in 3-D IMAX but it looked a little better in HD at home

I'd guess your TV at home is brighter than the Imax picture was, and/or the Imax has a calibration problem...?